"The king [Hrolf] said he thought fighting
Harek wasn't much of a risk, and then
they went outside. A cloak was spread
under their feet, and the berserk [Harek]
recited the rules of combat. The king
had no weapon except the giant's
sword. thord held the shield for the
king, and with the first blow the king
split the berserk's head right through
to the shoulders."
Although the above example refers to a Swedish king and a holmgang in
England, the duel still follows the aforementioned rules of Icelandic hólmganga.
The only difference between this example and the rules noted above deals with
the death of one of the combatants.
The Icelanders, realizing that their
population was small and that it was a waste to have the important men of the
country killing each other, incorporated two rules that virtually ended this
loss of life. These were the rules that combat would end as soon as blood fell
to the cloak, and that the party that lost would pay a "ransom" of three marks
of silver to the winner in holgangs where the reason for the duel was not an
easily transportable item. "these two rules must have been fairly late additions
to the hólmgöngulög. They are legal modifications in the stern spirit of
wager-of-battle, and show a considerable amelioration of its earlier principles.
Originally the holmgang was a fight to the finish, or until one of the
combatants was so badly wounded that he could not continue."
Continued in Part Two.
This artical appeared in Valhalla's Svar Vol. 6 No.7, November 1995 .
As stated earlier, the holmgang was a legally recognized way to settle
a dispute. It was used and worked primarily because "[t]he ideal of the warrior
was so entrenched... That refusal... to ...dual was considered dishonorable.
When emotions ran very high, a duelist threatened... public dishonor during the
wording of, or acceptance of, the challenge. If he failed to appear, he would be
legally declared a nithingr, a man devoid of honor." Honor was a concept that
was at the core of the Nordic culture. A man without honor was better off dead
since no one, not even relatives, would have dealings with a man declared
nithigr. "There is some fragmentary evidence that the nithigr declaration meant
more than public dishonor. A curse in Vatnsdale Saga indicates that the penalty
was outlawry." Because one's social status was at stake, as well as the object
being fought over (wether physical or moral), normally challenges were not made
lightly. For the most part, challenges were made because someone's honor had
been called into question, as a form of legal redress, or to aid a family member
or close friend. Of these three reasons, holmgangs in defense of one's honor are
the most dominant.
One example of this situation comes from The Saga of
Gunnlaugur Snake's Tougue. In this saga Gunnlaugur had lent some money to a man
he thought to be of good standing, but in reality the man was nothing more than
a thief and berserk who enjoyed cheating people. After a second attempt to
persuade the berserk failed, Gunnlaugur challenged him to a duel. "'Now I want
to offer you law' says Gunnlaugur, 'That you pay my money or else duel with me
three nights from now.'" The time frame here is another aspect of the
hólmgöngulög that was variable. Almost all duels were to be fought three to
seven days after the challenge, although as will be shown later, there were
exceptions to this. Something possibly confusing here is the fact that
Gunnlaugur states the time lapse in nights. One might then assume that the duel
was to be fought at night. This would, however, be incorrect. Until after the
complete implementation of Christianity in the Nordic world, the calendar was
ticked off in nights instead of days. Thus would wonder why this example comes
under the heading of duels fought for honor. This is due to the fact that if a
warrior such as Gunnlaugur were to allow the berserk to cheat him, Gunnlaugur
would suffer a loss of prestige and his ability to function in society as he
would become nithingr. Some might ask why Gunnlaugur did not take the berserk to
court over the money. There are three reasons for this. Firstly, courts in the
Nordic world met only once every three months. Secondly, although both men were
from Nordic countries and knew their laws well, the incident takes place in
England, and the English king was reluctant to involve himself in a dispute
between two foreigners. Finally, even if the case were to go to court, English
or Nordic, the court would most likely rule that the man was a known cheat and
thus Gunnlaugur got what he deserved for dealing with the berserk; such was the
mind of the people in the Viking Age. Thus the only course of action open to
Gunnlaugur was to challenge the berserk.
Another illustration of the
honor driven holmgang comes from Kormak's Saga. Here Kormak challenges his long
time rival, Bersi, because Bersi has married a woman betrothed to Kormak.
"Then Kormák said: 'I challenge
you , Bersi, to go to the holm
with me within a half month's
time, on Leidholm (Assembly
Island) in Middale.' It is now
called Battle Island. Bersi said
he would come. He said Kormák
chose that which would bring
him less honor"
This last statement by Bersi was made as Bersi was the better fighter
of the two and he knew that he would defeat Kormak, thus lessening Kormak's
honor.
A similar situation to the example from Gunnlaugur's Saga involved
a legal dispute between Egil and another man named Atli. Their argument was over
Egil's wife's inheritance. In short, through earlier legal chicanery, and the
bad will of King Eirik of Norway toward Egil, Egil's wife was unable to claim
her inheritance after her father died. A number of years had past and a new king
was on the throne. The new king, Haakon, was the foster son of the king of
England, Ćthelstan, and Egil was a good friend of Ćthelstan. Egil now believed
that a letter from Ćthelstan to Haakon would help him get his wife's
inheritance. Egil and Atli went to the Gula Assembly to put their claim before
the court there. But when it appeared that Atli would again cheat Egil through
false witnesses, Egil stood and said: "'I'm offering you another law, 'he said,
'that the two of us fight a duel here at the assembly, winner take
all."'
Egil's challenge is similar to Gunnlaugur's, but only in that the
main characters involved are attempting to regain moneys and/or properties owed
them. For Egil this was not a matter of honor, but a matter of legal redress.
Egil won the duel and was thus able to claim his wife's inheritance without
further interference. "Holmgang was a step in the slow transition from private
to communal law, a deft attempt to lead what could not be driven. It was a
private sentence and execution carried out in an enjoined manner, and on that
account sanctioned by the community."
Continued in Part Three.
This artical appeared in Valhalla's Svar Vol. 6 No. 8, December
1995.
"There was a particularly binding element about a challenge to holmgang. It was a challenge to one's manhood, which could be vindicated only by a ready acceptance of the offer of battle. It went further than a legal summons - it was a private arraignment and a matter of personal honor or dishonor. to refuse ... was to refuse the manly course ... and this laid a man open to the charge of cowardice." Ljósvetninga Saga offers another example of a challenge to a holmgang for legal redress which falls within the auspices of the above quote.
"Then Thorir spoke for all to hear:
'I haven't gotten to the last of my
offers yet, Gumund, for I know that
you have a lot more against me
than just the marks on Thorir
Akraskegg's goats; I know that you
blame me alone for saying what
many say, though others are no
less implicated, namely that I have
called you an effeminate pervert. I
now wish to test whether that is true
or not, so I am challenging you to
single combat to be held in three
days on the islet in Oxar River
where duels used to be fought. Let
the two of us do battle according to
the ancient laws.'"
In this situation the man issuing the challenge has done so to
forestall the courts from possibly issuing a verdict against him. Thorir knew
that Gudmund had no chance of defeating him in battle, thus for Thorir, this was
a win/win situation. If he defeated Gudmund the lawsuit would be over, and, if
Gudmund refused, the court would believe the slanders against Gudmund were true
and decide in favor of Thorir.
In legal usage, the third most common
reason after honor and legal redress for a challenge to a holmgang would be an
instance where one aids a family member or a close friend. Chapter sixty-four of
Egil's Saga gives another good example. Egil had been staying at the home of his
blood-brother's sister. Egil noticed that his host's family was quite subdued
and asked what was the matter. The woman answered that a berserk named Ljot had
come and asked for the woman's daughter in marriage. When this was refused Ljot
challenged the woman's son, Fridgeir, to a duel. The challenge was accepted, but
the family knew that the tough man had no chance of winning against the berserk.
This brought the family to a state of near depression for the woman knew that
she would lose both her son and her daughter. When Egil asked if he could do
anything to help she said:
"What I'd like, Egil, is for you to go
duel with Fridgeir. I know that if
Arinbjorn [her brother and Egil's
blood-brother] were in Norway we
wouldn't have to endure the brute
force of men like Ljot." "Lady,"
said Egil, "for your brother
Arinbjorn's sake it's my duty to
go with your son if he thinks I can \
be any help."
Once again Egil showed how honor "...is perhaps the most important
feature..." in Nordic life, especially in the area of dueling. Here Egil showed
that by not offering aid he sullied his honor; Arinbjorn is his blood-brother
and in the Nordic world this was a tie that could be closer than that of two
siblings. He also showed that he would not bring insult on Fridgeir by just
stepping in, he will only of if "... he thinks I can be any help." This
acknowledged that the fight was Fridgeir's and that it must be Fridgeir who
asked for the aid.
From Njal's Saga comes an example which fits the
headings of Aid to others and Legal Redress.
"Gunnar said, 'I shall challenge
you to single combat, Ulf Uggason,
if people are not to get their just
rights from you. Njal and my friend
Helgi would, I know, expect me to
support you Asgrim, if they cannot
be present themselves.' 'But you
have no quarrel over this claim,'
said Ulf. 'That does not matter,'
replied Gunnar. The outcome was
that Ulf had to pay the whole claim."
In this situation Ulf was not required to fight or be called coward;
he was being given the choice of either dealing fairly in the lawsuit or facing
Gunnar at the holmgang. Either choice here was honorable. As to Gunnar's
actions, he was not well acquainted with Asgrim, but Asgrim was a friend of
Gunnar's very good friends Njal and Helgi, both of whom would have supported
Asgrim in his suit. Gunnar, however, being not as law wise as Njal, gave the
only aid that he knew how to give that would best aid the friend of his
friends.
"The victory clause [that the winner takes all that is being
fought over] clearly favored the duelist of the superior strength and skill.
While the victory clause permitted a socially disadvantaged warrior to press for
his legal rights ... it also allowed unscrupulous warriors to gain ... wealth'
through what could be termed legal abuse of the holmgang. There are many stories
throughout the sagas wherein a warrior challenged someone solely to gain a woman
and/or property, either land or movable property. "References from Iceland and
in particular Norway ... show that the intrepid considered the duel an
instrument to better their way of life. Men of small means would put a claim on
alien property by challenging the owner to a duel. Victory or the challenger's
refusal to fight ... automatically legalized the claim. Berserks ... oppressed
the rich by challenging them to duels."
Another reference to a berserk
making a claim comes from Hrolf Gautreksson: A Viking Romance. Again a berserk
has come and asked for a man's sister, this time for her to be a concubine. When
the berserk is refused he makes the challenge. It is accepted, but for
unexplained reasons the berserk sets the date of the duel three years in the
future. This allows the man challenged time to find someone to fight in his
place. From Eyrbyggia Saga comes this reference: "Thorolf thought that the land
his mother had taken not nearly extensive enough, so he challenged Ulfar the
Champion to single combat for the land he owned, Ulfar being old and childless."
In the early days of the Icelandic Republic, as it came to be called later,
duels for land and/or women had not yet been outlawed. There is only one
reference in the sagas set in Iceland of a challenge for a woman, and a number
of short references to property duels in Landnamabok in addition to the one
noted above, that show that these type of duels were completely unjustified. As
such they were outlawed and "[a] man could no longer be challenged for his lands
or his women-folk, since the only result of the holmgang the law would allow,
apart from wounds or death, was a claim for the payment of the agreed upon
stakes. Any further act of personal aggrandizement was unauthorized pillage, and
could be resisted by the kinsmen or friends of the defeated fighter."
The
Nordic peoples were pragmatic and relied on their abilities to achieve what they
needed or desired. They looked on their gods as beings that could give aid, but
the Nordics did not always count on that aid coming through. This view point is
apparent in that the duelers did not see the hólmganga as any kind of judgment
by the gods, or after Christianization, God. "A statement by Snorri and several
references to religious ceremonies at the duel suggest ... that a closer bond
existed between the duel and religious conceptions prior to the Viking Age.
Other comments from the close of the heathen era ... indicate that a segment of
the population still believed the gods to be interested in the duel even though
they did not intervene." There are only two religious rites mentioned in any of
the sagas. These are the tjösnublót, and the offering of a sacrificial bull,
called the blótnaut. "Kormak's Saga (Chapter 10) is the only source which speaks
of the tjösnublót. The saga asserts that the sacrifice owed its name to the pegs
which secured the cloak on which the duelist opposed each other. The purpose of
the tjösnublót. isobscure ... because the saga omits the wording
of the
spell or incantation pronounced at the rite." According to Professor Gwen Jones,
the tjösnublót. was an outworn ceremony no longer in practical use by the time
of the Icelandic settlement period. He believes that the sacrifice may have been
an emplemistic ritual and a commendation of the warrior's soul to Odin, in his
role as the god of death.
While the tjösnublót. was carried out before
combat, the blónaut was occurred after. "[B]oth combatants would have a steer in
readiness. In this way they signify their willingness to repay to the gods any
favors granted them." After his duel with Atli, Egil sacrificed a bull. In this
reference it is stated that sometimes a third party brought the bull and that
occasionally both of the duelers brought their own. Kormaks Saga also has an
entry for the use of the bull sacrifice. "Kormak slaughtered the sacrificial
bull, as was the custom."
Even though the hólmganga held some religious
elements it was not considered to be Ordeal as were some duels in the later
Middle Ages and the Renaissance. "The combatants relied absolutely on their
strength, their cunning, their ferocity, and their weapons. Holmgang was often a
test of moral issues, but it was always decided by physical means. At times ...
a fighter would have recourse to supernatural and unearthly powers to help him
in his contest, either ... witchcraft ... magic ... or berserkergangr, but
[these] can hardly be ... divine assistance."
There seems to be only one
passage that refers to a holmgang as being an Ordeal, or a judgment of God. In
one saga, King Olaf Tryggvason diverts a supporter from fighting a holmgang
after it is revealed that the man's opponent had appealed to God to grant
victory to the combatant with the most just cause. In Vallaljot's Saga, chapter
twenty three, an Ordeal of hot iron is performed. As hostile commentary was set
forth by neither the author nor the characters involved in the scene about the
Ordeal's use, it would seem to indicate that the Icelandic people did not see
the hólmganga as a form of Ordeal. Had the Nordics seen the duel as an Ordeal, a
duel would have been fought instead of the use of the hot iron, or at least a
challenge made. Thus it can be seen that to the Nordic people the holmgang "was
not a form of Ordeal. It was peculiar and segregated legal procedure, and not an
attempt to provoke an impartial pronouncement from the ... Aesir [or God] about
... mundane affairs. [The] holmgang rested on a legal basis, and was recognized
as a legal proceeding.
Concludes in Part Four
This artical appeared in Valhalla's Svar Vol. 7 No. 1, January 1996.
"There is mention of hólmganga in seventeen sagas, [and they] give more or
less detailed accounts of about twenty-five holmgangs." And inspite of the fact
that there are a number of historically provable people with the epithet "the
Duelist", many of the twenty-five duels are considered to be nothing more than
literary inventions to spice up an otherwise dull story. The motive for this
conjecture is the overwhelming use of berserks as the antagonist. The foundation
of this is the so called "victory clause" of the hólmgöngulög. This clause
granted the winner of the duel the object(s) sought. Because of this "[b]erserks
fought without regard to the legal rights of their opponents." Thus a "berserk /
duel" motif was developed.
The motif has a berserk show up and ask (or
demand) that some woman in the house be handed over to become his wife or
concubine as was shown earlier in both Egil's Saga and Hrolf Gautreksson. The
"request" is denied and so the berserk challenges the man who has legal
guardianship over the woman. Then the challengee either fights using magical
weapons, or he finds someone to fight for him that is more than the equal of the
berserk. It was easy for the author of the later sagas to fall into this
pattern, if these sagas are truly using the berserk as a literary tool, as
berserks were already "inextricably linked to the history of hólmganga" through
historically verifiable holmgangs, and because they fit the role of a villain so
well.
The duel in the Nordic world was a legalized feud "...and it relied
on personal effort for the realization of the participator's aims. Unlike
blood-vengeance it was regulated in its methods and confined in its
application." The holmgang was used, and abused, legally until it was outlawed.
The Icelanders regulated the duel more heavily than Norway and were the first to
ban its practice in 1006, two years after the establishment of the Fifth Court
as an appeals court. "As the law of the clenched fist it [holmgang] suited well
the spirit of the time, and could not be dispensed with until something less
brutal, but equally effacious, had been found to take its place." Norway forbade
the holmgang eight years later. According to Grettis Saga it was Earl Eirik who
made the law banning the duel.
As has been shown, all duels were fought
on a plot or pitch. "Originally this was an island or islet to which the
combatants could repair, and then fight out their quarrel at will. The choice of
an island was was obvious mean {of} ensuring {that} neither party... step{ped}
outside the prescribed limit{s}." It is probable that each district, in both
Iceland and Norway, had a traditional site that was used for many generations
whereupon the duels were fought. The pitch, with its cloak or hide as a center,
had the look of a modern boxing ring. Here the "ring", all disputes were
discharged by the combatants without the interference of false witnesses or mass
numbers of supporters. the social rank of the two disputants had no bearing. The
social rank of the two disputants had no bearing. As stated in Egil's Saga,
"...everyone had the right to challenge another to a duel."
Although
anyone could make a challenge, the sagas show that the majority of duels were
fought between men who could afford good weapons and had the time to train with
them. These were the members of the aristocracy. "[I]t is possible that the
aristocracy would have resorted less to the duel, if the consequences of defeat
had not been exclusively in the hands of the combatants." This means that the
whole of the duel, from the reason for the duel, to the rules it was fought
under, to the reward or punishment of its outcome, was solely in the hands of
the combatants. In Norway, until dueling was outlawed, the winner gained all the
property of the loser; while in Iceland winnings came to be controlled. The
victor was restricted on what could be gained. In Iceland only, property in
dispute of ownership and matters of honor could be fought over. And with the
exception of the property, the highest monetary gain that could be made was
three marks of silver. It should also be remembered that although the hólmganga
was a legal procedure, the courts never encouraged its use.
The hólmganga
was a battle between individuals. Some men knew themselves incapable of
defeating their challenger, and so occasionally the use of a substitute was
made. One should remember that this was shown in Egil's Saga, Hrolf Gautreksson,
and, to an extent, in Njal's Saga.
Examples of the abuse of the hólmganga
were also shown. "That such a method of procedure was abused was evident from
its very nature, that no means of checking it existed was unfortunate, but
inevitable, because of the pusillanimity of the executive side of the
...courts." The holmgang was an easy road to riches for the skilled warrior who
had little honor. By challenging those weaker than themselves, berserks could
amass vast fortunes. For the Nordic warrior, wealth could only be attained
through battle, or trade. Any other approach was theft and would bar the warrior
from Valhalla. Since the hólmgöngulög had no rules against it, nor were there
any laws against it, the warrior, especially the berserk, would render an
opponent unfit for further strife before taking what he wanted.
" The
influence of religious conceptions on hólmganga was confined to the presence of
certain sacrificial elements. These are found rarely, and do not imply any
suggestion of divine intervention." The two forms of sacrifice in the hólmganga
where the tjösnublót and the blótnaut. From its position in the holmlaws, it
appears that the tjösnublót took place before combat. However, it's exact
significance is lost to modern readers. Blótnaut was the sacrificing of a bull
after the combat took place and was done by the winner of the duel. There is no
evidence in the sagas that suggests the that the Nordic peoples considered the
hólmganga as a form of Ordeal.
The Nordic countries came to realized that
the duel was not an appropriate way to solve disputes. Eventually, for reasons
suited to their own countries, the Norwegians and the Icelanders forbade to
practice of hólmganga. However, it should be remembered that "[h]olmgang was a
compromise between private and communal law. [I]t was strife every step of which
was regulated by... the hólmgöngulög."
Bibliography to Holmgang
Works Cited
Anderson, Theodore, and Miller, William Ian; Law and Literature in
Medieval Iceland: Ljosvetninga Saga and Valla-Ljot's Saga; Standford University
Press, Sanford; 1989
Byock, Jesse L; Feud in the Icelandic Saga;
University of California Press, Berkley; 1982
Bř, Olav; "Hólmganga and
Einvígi: Scandinavian Forms of the Duel", Mediaeval Scandinavia, vol. 2, Pp
132-148
Ciklimini, marlene; "The old icelandic Duel", Scandinavain
Studies, vol. 35, no. 3; 1963; Pp 174-194
________; The Literary Mold of
the Hólmgöngumaőr, Scandinavian Studies, vol. 37, no. 2, 1965; Pp
117-138
Fox, Denton, and Pálsson, Hermann (transltors); Grettir's Saga;
University of Toronto, Toronto; 1974
Hollander, Lee M.; The Sagas of
Kormak and the Sworn Brothers; Princeton University Press, Princeton;
1949
Jones, Gwen; "The Religious Elements of the Icelandic Hólmganga",
Modern Language Review, vol. 27; University Press, Cambridge; 1932;
Pp203-224
_________; "Some Characteristics of the Icelandic Hólmganga",
Journal of English and Germanic Philology, vol 32; University of Illinois; 1933;
Pp 203-224
Magnusson, Magnus, and Pálsson, Hermann (trans.); Njal's Saga;
Penguin Classics, NY; 1960
Pálsson, Hermann, and Edwars, Paul (trans.);
Egil's Saga; Penguin Classics, NY;1976
__________; Eyrbyggja Saga;
Penguin Classics, NY; 1989
__________; Hrolf Gautreksson: a Viking
Romance; Southside (Publishers) Ltd., Edinburgh; 1972
The Saga of
Gunnlaugur Snake's Tongue; Associated University Press, NJ; 1992 (No translators
or editors given)
Works Referenced
Byock, Jesse L., Medieval Iceland; University of California Press,
Berkley; 1988
du Chaillu, P.B.; The Viking Age; Scribner's Sons, NY;
1889; 2 volumes
Magnusson, Magnus; Vikings!; Elsivier-Dutton Publishing
Co. Inc., NY; 1980
Magnusson, Magnus, and Pálsson, Hermann (trans.);
Laxdćla Saga; Penguin Classics, NY; 1969
McKinnel, John (trans.),
Viga-Glums Saga: with the Tales of Ogmund Bash and Thorvald Chatterbox;
Canongate, Edinburgh; 1987
Miller, William Ian; Bloodtaking and
Peacemaking: Feud, Law, and Society in Saga iceland; University of Chicago
Press, Chicago; 1990
Sawyer, P.H.; Kings and Vikings; Methuen and Co.,
NY; 1982
Roesdahl, Else; The Vikings; Penguin Books, NY;
1987
Pálsson, Hermann (trans.); Hrafenkel's Saga and Other Stories;
Penguin Classics, NY; 1971
Pálsson, Hermann, and Edwards, Paul (trans.);
Gongu-Hrolfs Saga; Canongate, Edinburgh; 1980
Young, Jean, and Haworth,
Eleanor (trans.); The Fljotsdale Saga and the Droplaugarsons; J.M. Dent, London;
1990
* * * * *
This artical appeared in Valhalla's Svar Vol. 7 No. 2, February
1996.